posted at 10:45 am on December 22, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Over the last couple of weeks, I have written several times about LightSquared’s efforts to leverage its political connections into building a cell-phone and wireless broadband Internet connection on the cheap, but this story may come to a sudden halt whether LightSquared or its friends in the White House wish it or not. In my column for The Fiscal Times today, I introduce the controversy to TFT’s readers, but also break a little news. The decision by Barack Obama to sign the National Defense Authorization Act will bar LightSquared and the FCC from pursuing their project for the next two years, at least:

The overwhelming failure of the NTIA tests puts Genachowski in a corner, especially given the public statements from the Departments of Transportation and Defense specifying the failures.

In case that doesn’t prevent the FCC from succumbing to political pressure, Rep. Michael Turner inserted language into the National Defense Authorization Act (section 913) that requires the Secretary of Defense to ensure that no commercial services are presenting “widespread harmful interference” – and certify that every 90 days for the next two years. It furthermore requires that the FCC “ensure that the signals of Global Positioning System satellites can be received without interruption or interference.” President Obama will sign the NDAA in the next few days (a bill that has other controversial provisions in it), which will give this language the force of law.

Once Obama signs the bill, the FCC has no choice but to deny LightSquared’s petition for a declaratory ruling in their favor and refuse to allow them to proceed for another two years.

Be sure to read it all, especially if you need to catch up to the story.

As I noted in the previous post, Obama plans to sign the NDAA with this language in the next couple of days, albeit with a signing statement on an unrelated issue. That hasn’t kept LightSquared and its parent, the hedge-fund Harbinger that’s currently under SEC investigation for potential fraud and market manipulation, from trying to win politically what it couldn’t technologically. They have begun a Facebook blitz that links to every sympathetic article, and puts up odd assertions like this: “Today there are twice as many mobile-broadband as fixed broadband subscriptions. We need to find a wireless solution!” Well, if we do have twice as many mobile broadband subscriptions as fixed-point subscriptions, doesn’t that make the argument that we already have plenty of wireless solutions available? The mobile customers aren’t moving around with really long wires, after all.

Speaking of sympathetic pieces, this Forbes article lamenting the fact that “Washington” has killed LightSquared really needs a fact check:

Falcone bought debt and equity in both companies and by 2007 had engineered an agreement where Inmarsat leased its spectrum to SkyTerra to assemble a single 20-megahertz block. The problem was the existing tenants. Or, in Falcone’s case, squatters. The GPS system operates on a slice of spectrum between 1,559 megahertz and 1,610 megahertz. But the transmitters on GPS satellites are weak: the equivalent of a 50-watt lightbulb hanging 12,550 miles in the air.

To pick up such faint signals, the GPS industry designed receivers that take in a broad swath of radio waves on either side, like an owl’s huge eyes that can see a single photon in the darkness of night. Instead of zeroing in on the GPS ­frequencies alone, they take in the entire GPS band plus ­Falcone’s neighboring ­­block. That allowed for cheap, handheld GPS devices. But it was based on the assumption no one would ever build on the lot next door.

That “assumption” was the FCC’s own spectrum allocation plan, which restricted the frequencies “next door” to low-power satellite communications for this very reason. Instead of buying frequencies in a part of the spectrum planned for ground-based telecommunication, LightSquared tried to get the FCC to waive the power restrictions, a decision that would have saved them billions of dollars, as Forbes notes:

Since then the government has raised $52 billion by selling spectrum to owners who can do pretty much whatever they want as long as they don’t transmit on frequencies that belong to somebody else. The spiraling price for radio spectrum has created the equivalent of land developers who buy underused frequencies, pay the existing “tenants” to move out and then apply to the zoning authorities—in this case, the FCC—to build skyscrapers on the land.

No, broadcasters cannot do “pretty much whatever they want” with their licenses. They are restricted by power output and transmission type, as anyone who has held an FCC radio license either commercially or otherwise knows. If that were true, then Falcone wouldn’t have had to get the waiver at all. The FCC imposes those restrictions for the very reason at stake here, which is to make sure one broadcaster doesn’t interfere with another’s services.

Nor does Forbes do a very good job of dot connecting:

He thought he’d cleared the last hurdle standing between him and the trade of his life in January 2011, when the FCC granted LightSquared permission to operate a combined cellular/satellite communications network in the so-called L-band, adjacent to the frequencies GPS uses. That theoretically made Falcone’s 56 megahertz of radio spectrum, purchased for about $2 billion in a series of transactions a few years ago, worth as much as $17 billion. …

Then in November LightSquared asked the FCC to allow its wholesale customers to sell “terrestrial only” cellular plans. The rest of the industry saw this as a threat, since it had assumed LightSquared would have to charge higher prices to meet the requirement that it build an integrated satellite/terrestrial system. But the objection may be hollow: LightSquared says it spent $50 million developing new Qualcomm chipsets that make it possible to offer dual-mode service at prices below cellular.

In other words, having gotten a $15 billion advantage over their potential competitors, Forbes wants to argue that a $50 million investment somehow balances the equation. I’m pretty sure they’re better at math than this at Forbes. And the point still remains that the GPS industry, including military and commercial aviation systems, has millions and millions of units in the field, the vast majority of which will fail if LightSquared manages to get FCC approval for its system, which has failed the NTIA testing on which it was conditioned. That was a risk that Falcone knew before sinking this money into the LightSquared venture, and the remedy that Forbes seems to champion in this piece is the obsolescence of millions of general-purpose, military, and aviation GPS systems in order to allow LightSquared to build a cell-phone network on the cheap, by shifting the cost of the obsolescence onto consumers and the government.

Thankfully, Congress seems to have headed this off with the NDAA, but that doesn’t lessen the need to discover what the FCC was thinking — or what it was told — when they issued the conditional waiver in the first place.

Update: Rep. Michael Turner will shortly release this statement, which states categorically that the NDAA would bar the FCC from approving LightSquared’s application:

“The President will shortly sign the National Defense Authorization Act for FY12, which contains a provision I sponsored with Rep. Loretta Sanchez that will prohibit FCC approval of the LightSquared network until concerns about its widespread harmful interference with DOD’s Global Positioning System are resolved. I understand the company has recently petitioned the FCC to approve its network immediately.

“Such approval, in view of the recent test results of the LightSquared network’s effect on GPS receivers, would be prohibited by our legislation. The FCC should take no actions inconsistent with the bipartisan and bicameral position of the Congress that our first goal must be to protect DOD GPS systems.”

That’s the way I read Section 913 as well. Interesting that Sanchez partnered with Turner on this prohibition, too.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

“The decision by Barack Obama to sign the National Defense Authorization Act will bar LightSquared and the FCC from pursuing their project for the next two years, at least…”

This is a critical window into which LTE (4G) is being deployed. Notwithstanding LightSquared’s efforts to get the FCC to waive the power restrictions, which if permitted would essentially interfere with current cell provider’s networks, this venture won’t succeed.

Obama plans to sign the NDAA with this language in the next couple of days, albeit with a signing statement on an unrelated issue.

And herein lies the underlying, unstated, real reason why Oblarney is attaching the (wrong when W did it) signing statement to the NDAA agreement since it handcuffs him with regard to Lightsquared–then again, he’ll keep pivoting, spinning and fabricating to get around the law to find a way to get Lightsquared what it wants.

“Such approval, in view of the recent test results of the LightSquared network’s effect on GPS receivers, would be prohibited by our legislation. The FCC should take no actions inconsistent with the bipartisan and bicameral position of the Congress that our first goal must be to protect DOD GPS systems.”

Bye, Bye Lightsquared – Obama has no use for you any longer…..

Soon, Obama will be dangling the Keystone pipeline in front of oil companies
for promises of huge campaign donations…..

Ed, you’re assuming that this White House wouldn’t just try to ignore Section 913, given the right amount of 2012 campaign donation cash from LightSquared. Unless of course, the GPS manufacturers and others who would be negatively affected by a decision ignoring 913 ponied up more campaign money. For the Obama Administration, the rule of law is trumped by crony capitalism every time.

Finally, a little stocking stuffer that brings a Mona Lisa smile to my face…let’s just hope this is just the beginning! Falcone’s mistake was to have already held the fund raisers, he showed his cards too early.

One of the more interesting aspects of all this is the apparent assumption that the US Congress and FCC control the RF spectrum.

Just asking….do Russia or the Chinese have to purchase leases from the FCC to utilize some portion of the spectrum?

If I were Lightsquared, I’d go offshore to some rinky-dink country and plop a wad of cash into the pocket of some tin-hat dictator in return for a signed letter from that sovereign state saying I have full rights to whatever frequency I want.

That would force the FCC and the US government to argue (somewhere) that only they can authorize use of the RF spectrum planet wide because…uh….well…because we said so.

Turn this around a bit. Suppose China or Russia deploy a space-based telecom system that interferes with GPS reception here in the US in the same way that Lightsquared will. Will the FCC deny approval of the Russian or Chinese system?

Dream on. This whole affair is so arrogant it is no wonder the world has such disdain for us now.

this story may come to a sudden halt whether LightSquared or its friends in the White House wish it or not. …The decision by Barack Obama to sign the National Defense Authorization Act will bar LightSquared and the FCC from pursuing their project for the next two years, at least

Silly Wabbit. No law has ever stopped these people, and none ever will.

Do you think the mere fact that Obama personally signed the thing will make a damned bit of difference? Hey, have you ever heard of a little thing called WAIVERS?

Instead of zeroing in on the GPS ­frequencies alone, they take in the entire GPS band plus ­Falcone’s neighboring ­­block. That allowed for cheap, handheld GPS devices. But it was based on the assumption no one would ever build on the lot next door.

That “assumption” was the FCC’s own spectrum allocation plan, which restricted the frequencies “next door” to low-power satellite communications for this very reason.

This needs clarification. As of 2004, the FCC’s own spectrum allocation granted them the “next door” frequencies for use in a cell phone network.

So, GPS systems built after 2004, that have been taking in the neighboring block, have NOT been adhering to FCC rules.

If I were Lightsquared, I’d go offshore to some rinky-dink country and plop a wad of cash into the pocket of some tin-hat dictator in return for a signed letter from that sovereign state saying I have full rights to whatever frequency I want.

That would force the FCC and the US government to argue (somewhere) that only they can authorize use of the RF spectrum planet wide because…uh….well…because we said so. …

BobMbx on December 22, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Well, except for the inconvenient detail that they want to use those frequencies for land-based communication in the US. The US doesn’t license spectrum in other nations, only its own. And LS wouldn’t interfere with GPS in the US at all if it built its system in Russia, because, er, the towers would be in Russia and not interfering with GPS receivers on the ground and in the air in the US.

One of the more interesting aspects of all this is the apparent assumption that the US Congress and FCC control the RF spectrum.

Just asking….do Russia or the Chinese have to purchase leases from the FCC to utilize some portion of the spectrum?

If I were Lightsquared, I’d go offshore to some rinky-dink country and plop a wad of cash into the pocket of some tin-hat dictator in return for a signed letter from that sovereign state saying I have full rights to whatever frequency I want.

That would force the FCC and the US government to argue (somewhere) that only they can authorize use of the RF spectrum planet wide because…uh….well…because we said so.

Turn this around a bit. Suppose China or Russia deploy a space-based telecom system that interferes with GPS reception here in the US in the same way that Lightsquared will. Will the FCC deny approval of the Russian or Chinese system?

Dream on. This whole affair is so arrogant it is no wonder the world has such disdain for us now.

BobMbx on December 22, 2011 at 11:30 AM

My understanding is the ground-based system is the problem. They aren’t launching satellites.

One of the more interesting aspects of all this is the apparent assumption that the US Congress and FCC control the RF spectrum.

Just asking….do Russia or the Chinese have to purchase leases from the FCC to utilize some portion of the spectrum?

If I were Lightsquared, I’d go offshore to some rinky-dink country and plop a wad of cash into the pocket of some tin-hat dictator in return for a signed letter from that sovereign state saying I have full rights to whatever frequency I want.

BobMbx on December 22, 2011 at 11:30 AM

You’re kind of missing a lot of the picture here. The US federal government controls the RF spectrum in the US. The government also has treaties and agreements with other nations, most importantly Canada and Mexico, to make sure that the spectrums they license do not cause harmful interference.

The US doesn’t grant global spectrum licenses, and Russia and China are free to license spectrums in their respective nations. I’m not sure how you think putting a tower in Venezuela or similar locale would provide radio coverage into the US.

Turn this around a bit. Suppose China or Russia deploy a space-based telecom system that interferes with GPS reception here in the US in the same way that Lightsquared will. Will the FCC deny approval of the Russian or Chinese system?

Dream on. This whole affair is so arrogant it is no wonder the world has such disdain for us now.

BobMbx on December 22, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Again, no, the FCC would have no say, nor would they claim to. That would, however, be something for the DoD to respond to, since it would be an act of aggression.

Just asking….do Russia or the Chinese have to purchase leases from the FCC to utilize some portion of the spectrum?

No, there are international agreements and an international council that sets radio frequency allocations. The US and all other major world powers have been part of that organization for years. Any frequency allocations with cross-border effects are resolved by this organization. Each country then allocates and authorizes use within the allocated spectrum per the international agreement.

If I were Lightsquared, I’d go offshore to some rinky-dink country and plop a wad of cash into the pocket of some tin-hat dictator in return for a signed letter from that sovereign state saying I have full rights to whatever frequency I want.

That presents an engineering problem limited by physics. The signals in question are strictly line of sight, thus, LightSquared could certainly set up a transmission system in Timbuktoo, but the signals would only be useable a few mile around the transmitter. That’s why you see so many cell phone towers and why you have cellular networks. The signals have to be transmitted line of sight and transferred between cells when you move around.

That would force the FCC and the US government to argue (somewhere) that only they can authorize use of the RF spectrum planet wide because…uh….well…because we said so.

Umm, nope. See above. This has been hammered out by international agreement since the invention of radio. There are times that we lose use of some bands because of this agreement (there were operational bands used by the military that were lost to such use a number of years ago). There are times we gain. However, there is a process that seeks to work out usage within countries does not interfere with uses in others.

Turn this around a bit. Suppose China or Russia deploy a space-based telecom system that interferes with GPS reception here in the US in the same way that Lightsquared will. Will the FCC deny approval of the Russian or Chinese system?

Dream on. This whole affair is so arrogant it is no wonder the world has such disdain for us now.

BobMbx on December 22, 2011 at 11:30 AM

You need to research this better before making such a statement. No arrogance here at all. Even at the height of the cold war, the international agreements were maintained.

Turn this around a bit. Suppose China or Russia deploy a space-based telecom system that interferes with GPS reception here in the US in the same way that Lightsquared will. Will the FCC deny approval of the Russian or Chinese system?
BobMbx on December 22, 2011 at 11:30 AM

My understanding is the ground-based system is the problem. They aren’t launching satellites. So, sure, head to China. Broadcasting in China isn’t going to disrupt my GPS, thank you.
makattak on December 22, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Well, he has got a point though. China or Russia can start trying to jam American GPS satellites any time they want. And they won’t have to worry one tiny little bit about the FCC.

We have different agencies to deal with that contingency. Such as the USAF, the USN, the USMC.

Schwwwwwwwippp! (sound of carpet being pulled out from under my argument)

BobMbx on December 22, 2011 at 11:48 AM

Great sound effects! Yes, the issue is that LSQ is licensed for low-power satellite communications for those frequencies, and they want to build a terrestrial (ground-based) cell network instead. That’s why they need the waiver from the FCC.

Yes, the issue is that LSQ is licensed for low-power satellite communications for those frequencies, and they want to build a terrestrial (ground-based) cell network instead. That’s why they need the waiver from the FCC.

Ed Morrissey on December 22, 2011 at 12:11 PM

Again, this isn’t entirely accurate. The frequencies in question have been allocated for a ground-based cell network since 2004. The waiver is for power increases on those frequencies.

Yup, and it wouldn’t be that difficult to do. Hopefully, the military isn’t becoming too dependent on GPS because otherwise those “different agencies” might be unable to “deal with” that contingency.
blink on December 22, 2011 at 12:17 PM

Blocking civilian GPS receivers is pretty easy to do. The military signals require quite a bit more work.

Blocking military GPS tactically (i.e., on the ground) is considered fair game, and it’s something all our hardware is designed to cope with; it basically just reduces redundancy and efficiency.

But trying to interfere with the actual satellites – either military or civilian – would constitute a strategic attack. And you can bet your ass none of our strategic response forces rely on that stuff.

Everyone says the Republicans / Boehner are the bad guys, their messaging stinks. Agree somewhat on messaging, but if their actual message (and wishful thinking here, THE TRUTH) were to be told, the nation would be aghast not at them.

The “message” is simply what Obambi says, and the press passes it on with s straight face, and the sheeple believe.

Blocking civilian GPS receivers is pretty easy to do. The military signals require quite a bit more work.

logis on December 22, 2011 at 12:29 PM

On what basis are you making this claim??? If a jamming signal were transmitted on GPS frequencies than it wouldn’t be that difficult at all.

Blocking military GPS tactically (i.e., on the ground) is considered fair game, and it’s something all our hardware is designed to cope with; it basically just reduces redundancy and efficiency.

Really? What redundancy does is reduce? Navigation/positioning systems? Is that because you’re claiming that the military would merely stop relying on GPS? Wasn’t that my point?

But trying to interfere with the actual satellites – either military or civilian – would constitute a strategic attack.

What are you talking about? You just said that that blocking military GPS was fair game, and now you’re claiming that it’s a strategic attack?

I don’t think you understand how the GPS system works. The satellites transmit and the GPS receivers simply receive and process the satellite signals. The only things that can be jammed are the signals from the satellites.

Blinky, you still don’t have the faintest clue about this subject: give it up!!! You are WRONG about the technology, WRONG in your basic understanding of how it works, and WRONG about the law and how it is administered.

I suggest that you read up on the subject and related material, including a little case study, so that you UNDERSTAND it before you post again.

Once Obama signs the bill, the FCC has no choice but to deny LightSquared’s petition for a declaratory ruling in their favor and refuse to allow them to proceed for another two years.

I think they forget whom they’re talking about here. NOTHING gets in the way of these people when they decide they want to do something. Haven’t we at least learned THAT by now? This is the Banana Republic of America now, Obama isn’t going to let some obscure clause buried deep in a huge spending bill get in his way.

Blinky, you still don’t have the faintest clue about this subject: give it up!!! You are WRONG about the technology, WRONG in your basic understanding of how it works, and WRONG about the law and how it is administered.

landlines on December 22, 2011 at 2:10 PM

What happened to you on the last thread? I asked if you wanted to challenge each others electrical engineer education and you disappeared….

I understand electro-magnetic wave behaviors well. I understand the modulation of such waves. I understand the electronics that receive the modulated waves. I understand the GPS system very well as both an operator and an engineer. I understand the Code of Federal Regulations that pertain to this situation very well.

It’s obvious that I understand this matter much better than you do.

I suggest that you read up on the subject and related material, including a little case study, so that you UNDERSTAND it before you post again.

As an RF Eng (application & federal compliance), I am enjoying what you are doing in this thread. Lol! Ask ‘em about the Redbook, the concept of BDR, or any clause in CFR47 and listen to the crickets chirp. :)

You clearly don’t have the most vague clue what the terms “strategic” and “tactical” mean. And, as near as I can tell, you don’t even seem to quite grasp the difference between the “ground” and a “satellite.”

But you claim to be some sort of expert on something having to do with electronics? Tell you what, if both my arms get broken and I need a light bulb changed — and absolutely no one else is available — I’ll think about maybe giving you a call.

You clearly don’t have the most vague clue what the terms “strategic” and “tactical” mean. And, as near as I can tell, you don’t even seem to quite grasp the difference between the “ground” and a “satellite.”

logis on December 22, 2011 at 4:17 PM

I have plenty of experience with both strategic and tactical. Are you implying that the US would launch nuclear weapons at someone that jammed GPS signals? Yeah, ok.

It was obvious that you didn’t understand how the GPS system worked. You’ve probably read up on it now and won’t make the same mistake again. That’s fine.

I also discussed the issue of a steeper band-pass filter roll-off rate, but after looking at some catalogs I agree that a semiconductor solution might be too big or expensive for something like a smart phone GPS system.

Ask ‘em about the Redbook, the concept of BDR,

Hey, logis, I think you should tell us about Redbook and the concept of BDR.

First, LS negotiates for satellite bandwidth next to GPS transmit frequencies. For the uninitiated, satcom (i.e. from geosynch) is useless as a cell phone alternative. The 1/4 second delay in voice to voice communication would not be tolerated by consumers, nor would the additional antenna requirements–think baseball cap with star-ship enterprise on top. I can see a new fashion trend…or maybe not.

Surprise! LS comes along and first asks for authorization to “augment” their satellite system in 2004 with a ground network, and then in 2011 requests permission for a full-blown ground only network. Gosh…who woulda thunk?

Congress needs to flush this turkey of a system before another $ is wasted.

I have plenty of experience with both strategic and tactical. Are you implying that the US would launch nuclear weapons at someone that jammed GPS signals? Yeah, ok.
blink on December 22, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Does the word “du-uh” mean anything to you? That’s got to be somewhere in the women’s fasion magazines you’re always reading.

Seriously though, no one who actually understood what any of those words mean would ever say anything remotely like anything that you have said. With all due respect, you have a very jumbled brain.

Higher filter Q = tougher group delay response, expense and physical size. Not a trivial retrofit problem in any sense of the word. Particularly for consumer devices. Wideband front-ends aren’t generally conducive to aggressive roll-off slope in most practical application cases (although can be done with 3rd order and higher cans).

In any case, this doesn’t address blocking problems due to ingress field energy into critical freqs (IF, Image, LO) via the case at the conversion stages. Send any of those values non-linear and the heterodyne transfer collapses. Also, pre-selectors (as you likely well know), do absolutely zero to roll-off co-channel interference energy. If it’s in-band/in-channel it’s supposed to get in. Harmonics from the crap these bozos are attempting to radiate drop right into those passband values. With extreme sensitivity in a GPS rx (ala -185dBw for example, it takes very, very little noise power to de-sense the detector and send SNR into the proverbial toilet. Kalman filtering and other digital techniques to absolutely nothing to assist in this regard, as the analog detector and conversion stage circuits, if de-sensed, or gone non-linear, don’t provide the information a digital reconstruction “filter” (lol!) needs to pull a coherent baseband data packet out the noise. Digital filters cannot make something out of nothing.

On your CFR47 comments, I looked at the link. You’re dead right on Part 15 class b & class c device comments, as well as the marking and marketing stuff from Part 2.

I wouldn’t get to wound up about idiots talking our of their asses giving you a hard time on these topics. You’re dead in the bullseye. The beauty of it is you haven’t even touched the goodies in the Redbook, or any of the Equipment Authorization process…..

I just re-read my post. Sorry about the typos. Forgot to preview. My wife was recounting her oil-change/service invoice at the dealership today while I was typing. The numbers on her bill were accurate, but my key strokes weren’t. Lol! :)

Guess what, genius? The problem isn’t about about those Station Classes, or those allocations. It’s about Fixed Ground class retrans of those data streams crashing ground-based receivers in a different band.

People like you have no idea what Lightsquared is doing and it shows when you blab your gasshole.

While he may be right on his “technicals,” he is missing the forest for the trees.

You may question my understanding of LS, but if you read back over Blink’s responses in the past week, he is consistently wrong on when LS was approved, for what, and the implications of those approvals. He doesn’t seem to grasp the difference between augmentation and a full-blown ground-based cell system. He confuses the preliminary approval in 2004 of ACT augmentation with the 2011 request for a full ground based cell network. His arguments on the receivers are irrelevant given what LS was approved for and when.

You say the GPS band is not the real problem. I didn’t say the band was the problem, it is LS’s inappropriate use of that band to install a ground-based cell network, by using freqs allocated for a spaced based system.

The receiver issues are just a red haring. If LS were to use their bandwidth for its intended application, the receiver issues go away. If you wish, give him a prize for being right about the wrong issue.

The “adjacent property” was zoned for single story single family bungalows. Then LS came along and is proposing what literally amounts to more than a 1000 story impossible sky scraper on that property. The power levels allocated to that spectrum were quite in keeping with GPS needs. Then along comes something 1500 times as powerful as a cell phone type application demanding to use that spectrum and expects there’ll be no interference. It won’t fly. On this one Forbes is full of brown stinky material such as emanates from the South end of a North facing fertile male bovine.

Surprise! LS comes along and first asks for authorization to “augment” their satellite system in 2004 with a ground network, and then in 2011 requests permission for a full-blown ground only network. Gosh…who woulda thunk?

STL_Vet on December 22, 2011 at 5:32 PM

No, no, no. They were allocated the bandwidth for a land-based cell phone network in 2004.

You may question my understanding of LS, but if you read back over Blink’s responses in the past week, he is consistently wrong on when LS was approved, for what, and the implications of those approvals.

STL_Vet on December 22, 2011 at 10:57 PM

No, I’m not. They were allocated their frequencies for a land-based cell phone network in 2004. Why are you denying this?

Wideband front-ends aren’t generally conducive to aggressive roll-off slope in most practical application cases (although can be done with 3rd order and higher cans).

Concur. My initial research indicates that higher than 3rd order is necessary.

With extreme sensitivity in a GPS rx (ala -185dBw for example, it takes very, very little noise power to de-sense the detector and send SNR into the proverbial toilet.

Ha! Yes, hence the easy of jamming discussions above.

If it’s in-band/in-channel it’s supposed to get in.

This is an important question.

This Forbes article contains information from an engineer that seems to understand the exact design issues involved. He seems to believe that LightSquared isn’t emitting energy on the GPS frequencies. Given the high data rates that LightSquared’s system is promising (4G), I find this difficult to believe – we both know that higher data rates require higher modulation speeds which require greater bandwidth. So, I’m inclined to agree with you that LightSquared’s system is putting energy on GPS frequencies. However, I haven’t seen anyone definitively claim that this is the case.

It’s also interesting that he claims cell phone GPS devices are unaffected by LightSquared’s “lower 10″ MHz of their system – unlike other GPS devices.

Also, the government reports that I read claim that LightSquared’s full system interferes with 75% of GPS devices. This supports the belief that LightSquared isn’t emitting energy on GPS frequencies, because, if they were, I don’t know why 25% of GPS devices would function properly.

It seems to me that this entire venture was ill-advised from the start. If I had been an FCC engineer, I would have been immediately skeptical of the concept when it was first briefed to me. Then again, I’m incredibly impressed that cell phone data rates are continuing to increase given the tiny amount of power and spectrum that they have (although each cell does seem to get bogged down with traffic). Overall, it’s easy for me to believe that FCC engineers were “convinced” to provide their approval via politics or that FCC engineers never did provide their approval (yet the decision was made at higher levels against engineer recommendations). However, we don’t know this definitively.

It’s also possible that LightSquared engineers knew that GPS systems were become more susceptible in recent years even if GPS systems weren’t susceptible back in 2004.

Anyway, this is a fascinating issue made more fascinating by clueless comments being made by people claiming to understand everything that they need to understand.

Here is what the report says happened in 2004, note the approval wasn’t for the full ground based cell network, it was for augmentation.

In 2003, the FCC adopted initial rules allowing commercial satellite service providers to operate a ground network integrated with their satellite service. These integrated ground networks are referred to as an Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) of a Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) and were intended to ―fill-in‖ gaps and boost the penetration of the original satellite signal within dense urban environments. The integrated ATC network would simply augment the satellite signal.
The initial ATC ruling permitted MSS providers to enhance their satellite service but was not intended to become an independent terrestrial network. The FCC stated in the 2003 ruling:
The purpose of our grant of ATC authority is to provide satellite licensees flexibility in providing satellite services that will benefit consumers, not to allow licensees to profit by selling access to their spectrum for a terrestrial-only service.2In 2004, the FCC granted LightSquared (then known as MSV) conditional approval to build its integrated ATC ground-based wireless network using its satellite spectrum near the GPS signal.3 At that time, the GPS industry concluded that interference with GPS signal would be manageable as the ATC would simply augment the satellite signal.

Moving forward to 2011, we see the request for the ground-based system:

On January 26, 2011, the FCC granted LightSquared a conditional waiver of its ATC authority ―integrated service rule‖ meaning its customers could offer terrestrial only services

Here is what the report says happened in 2004, note the approval wasn’t for the full ground based cell network

I’m fully aware of this, but the fact remains that the frequencies were allocated for use in a land-based cell phone transmitters.

I know that LightSquared wants to get more than was originally approved. I’ve never denied this. I’m merely criticizing people for claiming that the spectrum was NEVER meant for anything other than satellite transmissions. This is patently false.

blink on December 23, 2011 at 11:08 AM:
Wow, you can’t even look at the right table. Those aren’t the problem frequencies.

Try again.

Not sure what you’re questioning, but 1525-1559 is the band in question (See LS Petition). Could be p. 31, however, hard to read. None-the-less, the table is clear that intended usage is space-to-ground. It is here.

By this petition, LightSquared asks the Commission to resolve the regulatory status of unlicensed commercial Global Positioning System (“GPS”) receivers vis-à-vis LightSquared’s licensed operations in the 1525-1559 MHz Mobile-Satellite Service (“MSS”)
band.

My apologies about the frequencies in question. I happily stand corrected.

However, the table clearly includes FIXED for a portion of this band. “FIXED” is consistent with what the table uses for GSM cell phone usage.

Regardless, did you read the “History” section of the PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING? The GPS industry knew about the approval of the ground based system and had much interaction with LightSquared since 2004. It’s impossible for any GPS industry to claim that they didn’t have knowledge about the intended use of these frequencies.

Obviously, it might be too late for LightSquared, but I’m telling you that there is another side to this story.